The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1887-04-20
NUMBER SO.

~ u NIDEh OO.
not paying them, but il did not render
Wright liable To such men for their pay
even though they may have known of
such provision before they were em-
ployed 10y Terry.
/ td.) The contract did give the employ
ees of Terry lien un the logs for their
/ labor or wages,
Judgment reversed and new trial
granted.
W. A. Blount, tor Appellant; Max
well X Mallory, for Appellee,
state er REL Henry r. Lillicnthal. Rela-
tor. vs. B. Y. Herndon, Respondent
quo HmrdEto.
RANFY. j.
!. When the material allegations of AN
Information i'm the nature Of quo icdT-
Tunt0 show that the relator was elected,
and j. qualified to hold an office, and
they are not denied 10y the answer of the
respondent, and such answer sets up
nothing constituting "A defense 10 the in
formation. and a demurrer to such
answer il sustained. and no application
/, made to amend the answer, "A ludg-
ment of custer against the respondent
should be entered and, under the
statute Of this state. the relator may, on
proof of his title. be adjudged 10 be en-
Titled to hold the office.
,. 4 subsequent election, held in con
sequence of declaration 10y the can
vassrrs that there had been a tie vote, Is
not bar Ia a recovery of the office 10y
the person elected thereto AT former
election.
Judgment of custer and recovery
granted.
William Scott. for Relator; J. W.
Tucker, for Respondent. n
William u. Chiplcy, Appellant vs.,
Wayne X, Atkinson, AppellT s-ss-
Gambia County.
RASEN, j.:
]. An action lies in behalf Of an en-
ployce against person who has mali
ciouely procured the employer 90 dis
charge such employee from employment
IN which he II engaged under legal con
tract, for "A certain period, provided
damage result 10 the employee from such
discharge.
, An action viii also lie where the pc
rod for which the employment Is 10 con
tinue II not certain. IL damage. should re-
suit from the discharge; even though,
from inability to ascertain the amount OF
the damage. verdict for nominal dani-
ages only should result.
s. The speculative profits of "A pro
posed business cannot be the basis OF the
assessment of actual damages. Where
however, in case OF like kind 10 one set
up in the first count of the declaration,
the defendant knew or believed, or had
reason To believe that the employer had
promised or did actually intend TO admit
the plaintiff into partnership with him,
the fact of such knowledge or belief or rea-
son 10 believe such promise or intention,
may be considered 10y the jury in passing
upon the motion of the defendant and in
fixing exemplary damages.
g. One person NAV withhold n gratuity
from. or may break his contract with. IA
second person. for the reason that the
second person retains a third person IN
his employ or with an interest IN his
business, without giving right OF action
10 the third person No legal right of the
third person, who simply 80 withholds or
breaks his contract for such reason, nor
Is there any priyity of contract between
the first and the third persons. The
assumed reason for the Withholding or
breach Is not of itself, or with the
mere Withholding of the gratuity or the
mere breach Of the contract, ground OF
action; nor il proof of the mere with
holding or breach, because of such re-
tention of the third person, proof of
procurement by the first person of the
discharge. 1t Is permissible, howeVer,ln
an action like this 10 show that such
Withholding or breach was maliciously
used by the first person 10 procure OF
persuade the second to discharge the
third person.
judi dgnent reversed and new trial
granted
w. A. Blount, for Appellant; Liddon
* Carter, j. &. Avery, FOR Appellee.
John \. Frese. Plaintiff in Error, w.
The State Of Florida, Defendant in
Error-lIeInand County.
RANEY. D.:
/. The sale of spirituous liquor, without
having license as "A dealer In spirituous
liquors. is "A misdemeanor, and prose-
cution of the otTense may be instituted
within two years next after the com
mission Of the offense. under the acs OF
July 10th, 1892. page ass, McClellan's
Digest
2 A single sale of "A spirituous liquor
without having "A license N a violation of
the provisions of the Revenue Act Of
1888, tchapter BIB
B 1 statute which enacts that an Of
fcn.e shall be punished by fine, is not
rendered unconstitutional 10y the fact
that il does not prescribe the Did.riDihm
amount Of fine which may be- imposed.
3. The fact that no contract, nor any
legal right of the employees as against
the employer, is violated by the EN-
plOyer or that no action can be main
tained by the employee against the en-
pioycr for such discharge, does not pre-
vent recovery against the third per
son who has maliciously procured the
discharge and which discharge would
not have occurred bat for such procure
ment.
l. An act done on attempt made by
third party with the malicious intent 10
procure such discharge, but not sue
cessful in procuring IT, will not support
an action brought for maliciously pro-
curing the discharge The actual pro
cureInent Of the discharge h an essential
10 such an action.
;. The declaration alleged in effect that
there was a contract for employment 10
be continued for period OF time; He'd,
it was error Ia charge the jury that the
plaintiff could recover even though there
was no contract for a definite term OF
service.
q. An absence from the agreement or
contract Of service Of any stipulation for
certain amount Of wages or compensh-
ton will not defeat a recovery. " the
value Of the compensation TO be- paid can
be asceriained ia any legal way II ~ SUI
ficicnt.
:. A discharge by the employer Is es-
sential 10 a recovery. II the employee
was not discharged, but voluntarily lett
the employment on account OF the con
duct Of the party charged with having
procured his discharge. the action can
not be maintained.
g. The provision of section " OF ~.
Revenue Act Of 1888, Ia the effect that
any person convicted of carrying on
business for which a license IL required,
without having first obtained such
license, shall be punished by fine Of
not less than double the amount re